Tuesday, July 25th 2017

AMD Radeon RX Vega Put Through 3DMark

Ahead of its July 27 unveiling at AMD's grand media event on the sidelines of SIGGRAPH, performance benchmarks of the elusive Radeon RX Vega consumer graphics card surfaced once again. Someone with access to an RX Vega sample, with its GPU clocked at 1630 MHz and memory at 945 MHz, put it through 3DMark. One can tell that it's RX Vega and not Pro Vega Frontier Edition, looking at its 8 GB video memory amount.

In three test runs, the RX Vega powered machine yielded a graphics score of 22,330 points, 22,291 points, and 20.949 points. This puts its performance either on-par or below that of the GeForce GTX 1080, but comfortably above the GTX 1070. The test-bench consisted of a Core i7-5960X processor, and graphics driver version 22.19.640.2.

Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

175 Comments on AMD Radeon RX Vega Put Through 3DMark

#2
erek
gdallsk said:
Hmmmm....

No thanks
:'(
Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
Well, if this is the XTX air/water... that isn't good. If it is something lower in the product stack...

300/375W vs 180 (gtx 1080) doesn't look good in performance /W. Looks like they will slide in on price: performance ratio and undercut.
Posted on Reply
#5
DRDNA
Right now I'm disappointed but I may not be in a month or two of Cat updates. AMD GPU's normally raise in their performance for the first few months if not for a year due to the Cat updates....
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
If the price is lower or the same of a 1070.... well :)
Anyways seems like AMD completelly lost the battle for top cards.
Posted on Reply
#7
ERazer
that gotta hurt for ppl that waited this long
Posted on Reply
#8
ratirt
ERazer said:
that gotta hurt for ppl that waited this long
Well it does. I'm waiting for it still and yet nothing breathtaking has been shown so far. Bummer or there's still hope for something slightly better? Hope there is :)
Posted on Reply
#9
ixi
Shhjjjiieeet..... Ou well. Sad for those eho were waiting.
Posted on Reply
#10
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
Hmm using a i7-5960X to get a somewhat respectable overall score...
Looking at the graphics score it's not much faster than my 1070 OC'd.

My 1070 OC'd does a respectable 21.169 graphics score.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheinsanegamerN
Not really unexpected, based on the performance of polaris. Most educated guesses put the VEGA chip at 1080 level at best. The fact that it is consistently faster then a 1070 is a bit better then expected. Unfortunately, it also confirmed that AMD completely threw this GPU generation to nvidia for anything other then low end cards, and does not bode well for volta VS navi.

Of course, that assumes this is the full 4096 core part. Based on FE's performance, I have little reason to believe otherwise, but still.
DRDNA said:
Right now I'm disappointed but I may not be in a month or two of Cat updates. AMD GPU's normally raise in their performance for the first few months if not for a year due to the Cat updates....
At which point volta will be out and dominating what is left of VEGA.

AMD needs to deliver at launch, not a year later.
Posted on Reply
#13
GhostRyder
Well that's not very good, depending on which variant it was... Pretty much rules them out of being competitive on the high end though as even if its the lowest card in that stack its not going to magically be up to 1080ti levels (Unless there is something I am missing).

Realistically, I think the only way for AMD to be completely competitive again is a completely new architecture, on a new node, and built from the ground up
Posted on Reply
#14
cryohellinc
If its cheaper compared to 1080, this will sell very well.
Posted on Reply
#15
fynxer
Now just watch when nVidia demolishes Vega and sends it into the lower end of the midrange segment with the release of 2070 and 2080 Volta in September

nVidia will do it just because they can right now and to keep AMDs profits down from the expensive to produce Vega.

They want AMD to continue being an underdog and let them chew on that dry bone barely covering their expenses in the graphics card division.
Posted on Reply
#16
B-Real
P4-630 said:
Hmm using a i7-5960X to get a somewhat respectable overall score...
Looking at the graphics score it's not much faster than my 1070 OC'd.

My 1070 OC'd does a respectable 21.169 graphics score.
How interesting that is:


An OC 1070 nearly gets to ref 1080 level... :)
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
I see we are still a generation behind nvidia assuming this is the higher sku.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/13034600

cryohellinc said:
If its cheaper compared to 1080, this will sell very well.
Only if it is priced well. If it is priced like a 1070 and performs like a 1080 some people will buy it. Issue is it is still half the performance per watt and in the quiet computing scene that now exists having an extra gpu worth of heat dumped into you case is bad all around.
Posted on Reply
#18
Liviu Cojocaru
If the price is right it could be ok, waiting for the launching benches so I can judge this better
Posted on Reply
#19
B-Real
cdawall said:
I see we are still a generation behind nvidia assuming this is the higher sku.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/13034600



Only if it is priced well. If it is priced like a 1070 and performs like a 1080 some people will buy it. Issue is it is still half the performance per watt and in the quiet computing scene that now exists having an extra gpu worth of heat dumped into you case is bad all around.
Gamers will not buy GPUs that are better in performance per watt. They will buy GPUs that are cheaper with the same performance, or same price like rival's cheaper card but performing like their bigger card. However, with the HBM, I doubt the 1080 performance will be sold for 1070 prices. We will see.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mark Little
"This puts its performance either on-par or below that of the GeForce GTX 1080..."

No.

The Geforce GTX 1080 was overclocked to 1924 MHz which is well above stock/turbo/max clocks of 1607/1733/1800 MHz. This is pretty much the best possible score a GTX 1080 can have overclocked almost to the max.

If the RX Vega at 1630 MHz is stock or even turbo, they will be in a good position. I calculate the card will be halfway between a stock GTX 1080 and a stock GTX 1080 Ti.

Rumored power consumption of 375W still suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccckkkkkkkssss.
Posted on Reply
#21
B-Real
Mark Little said:
"This puts its performance either on-par or below that of the GeForce GTX 1080..."

No.

The Geforce GTX 1080 was overclocked to 1924 MHz which is well above stock/turbo/max clocks of 1607/1733/1800 MHz. This is pretty much the best possible score a GTX 1080 can have overclocked almost to the max.

If the RX Vega at 1630 MHz is stock or even turbo, they will be in a good position. I calculate the card will be halfway between a stock GTX 1080 and a stock GTX 1080 Ti.

Rumored power consumption of 375W still suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccckkkkkkkssss.
That is for the water cooled version. Air cooled is 300W. 1080 is 180W, 1080Ti is 250W. Who cares about power consumption when we speak about a 400-500-700$ card?
Posted on Reply
#22
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
Aaaand a sudden stream of new TPU members coming in....LOL
Posted on Reply
#23
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
B-Real said:
Gamers will not buy GPUs that are better in performance per watt. They will buy GPUs that are cheaper with the same performance, or same price like rival's cheaper card but performing like their bigger card. However, with the HBM, I doubt the 1080 performance will be sold for 1070 prices. We will see.
Gamers but quiet, quiet cards don't double the heat output of their competitor. You know how I know this? Sales figures for the last 10 years.

If performance per watt didnt matter amd wouldn't have been only 28% of the market share when the 290/390 was selling.
Posted on Reply
#24
notb
In line with everything we've seen until now.
RX Vega == Vega FE Gaming mode.
As it should be.
Posted on Reply
#25
B-Real
cdawall said:
Gamers but quiet, quiet cards don't double the heat output of their competitor. You know how I know this? Sales figures for the last 10 years.

If performance per watt didnt matter amd wouldn't have been only 28% of the market share when the 290/390 was selling.
What I saw was that the AIB models of 290, 390 produced not much more heat than the 970 980 models. Same with the 480/580-1060. But ok, you tell that people are buying cards that have better performance/watt. I just don't accept it. :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment